History provides compelling illustrations of the rhetoric and persuasion techniques identified by Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his work “Rhetoric.” Each example is using the Aristotelian ethos (speaker’s reputation), pathos (emotional tone) and logos (rational arguments) in various proportions.
Demosthenes (384-322 BC), who was born in the same year as Aristotle and died roughly at the same age as Aristotle, gave inspiration for the Aristotelian principles of rhetoric.
He made repeated speeches in Athens, explaining the threats arising from King Philip II of Macedonia. Those speeches had the goal of convincing Athenian citizens to prepare the defence of their city against upcoming attacks from Macedonia.
Demosthenes and Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric and persuasion
Demosthenes’ speeches strongly relied on pathos (emotional tone). They made passionate appeals to honour, patriotism, and self-preservation. They produced outrage and indignation with the goal of awakening the listeners’ desire to fight.
The pathos employed by Demosthenes was forceful, intense and relentless. He used compelling imagery (“do you want to become slaves to Macedonia?”), extreme descriptions (“you will lose everything and will be mistreated”) and then repeated the main themes (“take action now, or it will soon be too late”) to drive his point home.
In 341 BC, Demosthenes delivered his most famous speech against King Philip II of Macedonia. He described the horrors that would take place if Athens was conquered by Macedonia, and made an urgent call to arms.
Together with the emotional undertone (“horrible things are about to happen”), Demosthenes employed the logos. He made logical arguments in favour of gathering an army to prepare the defence of Athens.
In his logical argumentation, he addressed one by one every possible objection to his call to arms. How do we know that Macedonia intends to attack Athens? What happens if we lose the war? Is it not better to accept slavery than fighting?
After enunciating the objections, Demosthenes demolished them systematically. He wanted his listeners to grow afraid and grasp intellectually that fighting was the best course of action.
Demosthenes also put the Aristotelian ethos (the speaker’s reputation) to work to his advantage. He reminded people of his decades-long engagement in Athenian public life and of his participation in past battles to defend Athens.
Pericles and Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric and persuasion
Pericles (490-429 BC), another talented speaker, was also Aristotle’s contemporary. His leadership in the Peloponnesian War and his funerary oration in honour of the fallen Athenian soldiers exemplify the best in Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric.
We know the contents of the funerary oration delivered by Pericles in 431 BC because Thucydides (460-400 BC) included an extensive report in his “History of the Peloponnesian War.”
The objective of Pericles’ speech was to say farewell to the deceased and exalt the virtues of Athenian democracy. I would go as far as saying that he was using the deceased soldiers as a pretext to arouse patriotism and recruit new soldiers (“are you committed to defending Athenian freedom?”).
Pericles’ funerary oration describes Athens as the paragon of liberty and cultural achievement, which was indeed the case if compared with Sparta but not so much if compared with Egypt and Babylonia.
Since his funerary oration was addressed only to Athenian citizens, Pericles carefully omitted to mention that one third of the Athenian population consisted of slaves. When he declared that “Athens is a model for the whole world to imitate,” he was preaching to the convinced.
The Aristotelian pathos (emotional tone) plays the main role in Pericles’ funerary oration. Pericles appealed to the emotions of Athenian citizens (“we all feel sorrow for our fallen soldiers and take pride in their sacrifice”) in order to use their grief and indignation as fuel for recruiting new soldiers. He called every male in Athens to join the army and avenge the dead soldiers.
Pericles’ funerary oration employs the Aristotelian rhetorical logos (logical arguments) to a lesser extent. He links his call to arms to the Athenian commitment to liberty, justice and artistic excellence, but his rational arguments seem weak compared to his call to avenge the dead soldiers.
Cicero and Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric and persuasion
In the ensuing centuries, the Roman senator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-143 BC) provides the best example of Aristotelian rhetoric put into practice. In addition to being a great speaker, Cicero composed a public speaking handbook (“The Orator”), where he expands the principles identified by Aristotle.
Cicero viewed effective public speaking as the combination of persuasion techniques (Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos) with deep knowledge of philosophy, literature, history and law.
You cannot make a good speech, he pointed out, if you do not know what you are talking about. You cannot provide solid arguments for your proposals if you lack knowledge of history and philosophy.
While Aristotle had presented the ethos, pathos and logos as elements to be combined on each occasion, Cicero underlined the importance of keeping the three elements consistent. If the speaker’s reputation is not aligned with his arguments and tone, the audience will not give credence to his words.
Cicero’s most famous speech (“In Catilinam”) was attacking the conspirator Catiline; he combined pathos and logos to paint the threat that Catiline represented for the Roman Republic and call for his immediate arrest.
In contrast to contemporary marketeers, Cicero was against exaggerating the facts; the impact of his speeches rested on his personal reputation of integrity; he was not willing to place his reputation at risk just for obtaining a short-term victory.
The consistency between ethos, pathos and logos played a key role in Cicero’s rhetoric. He called for speakers to build up their reputation (ethos), so that their rational arguments (logos) and emotional tone (pathos) achieve a maximum impact.
Quintilian and Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric and persuasion
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (35-100 AD) took Cicero’s call for consistency between ethos, pathos and logos, and elevated it to a higher level. Quintilianus (“Quintilian”) compiled all his teachings on rhetoric in handbook titled “Institutio Oratoria.”
Cicero had asked speakers to familiarize themselves with all facts relevant to their subject. Quintilian took Cicero’s idea to the extreme and outlined a comprehensive training program for speakers. Quintilian’s program (which would require years for a student to complete) includes philosophy, history, law, etc.
In addition, Quintilian called for speakers to cultivate virtue (to which he gave a meaning similar to Aristotelian virtue) and restrict their public speaking to noble purposes.
I can only assume that Quintilian would have a heart attack if he witnessed how often the Aristotelian teachings on rhetoric are being misused in today’s commercial advertisements.
Quintilian’s handbook exerted a large influence in medieval and Renaissance Europe; even nowadays, the training imparted by law schools all over the world includes many subjects that Quintilian had identified as essential.
If you want to train yourself in the Aristotelian principles of rhetoric (ethos, pathos and logos), I recommend your studying the best historical examples. You’ll seldom find better speeches than those delivered by Demosthenes, Pericles and Cicero.
If you are interesting in applying Aristotelian philosophy to improving your life, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: the shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”
Related articles
Impact of Aristotle’s views on knowledge and learning
Opponents to Aristotle’s views on knowledge and learning
Aristotle’s views on knowledge and learning
Putting Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric and persuasion into practice